April 18, 2011

"Grand Old corporate Prostitution ring."

P1080358

Clever wordplay at the anti-Tea Party protest Saturday.

251 comments:

1 – 200 of 251   Newer›   Newest»
Chip S. said...

There's no cleverness involved when you have to suppress two of the five words in your object of merriment.

Geez, why not just Grand Old Plutocrats?

Are these people really that pathetic?

Scott M said...

Sorry, but when you're trying to be pithy, you don't get a pass on an extremely badly executed acronym.

Manlaw.

shoutingthomas said...

Yes, and President Obama was the first presidential candidate to:

(1) Refuse public campaign funding because it would have limited the amount of money he could raise;

(2) Raise $1 billion in campaign funds.

Obama is a complete corporate whore.

His bailouts to the investment banks make President Bush look frugal.

And, he's getting ready to do it again in the 2012 race.

John Burgess said...

There is no 'U' or 'SEIU' in Democracy. What's that prove?

LordSomber said...

Clever? This is middle school stuff. I thought they would be a little more creative.
Or at least try to be persuasive.
Attention whores, that's all.

Chuck66 said...

I don't get it. Are they saying we shouldn't have private business in Wisconsin? If the Kochs close down the Georgia-Pacific mills in Wisconsin, who is going to pay the salaries and benies of the 80,000 government employees in Dane County?

If Dane county liberals succeed in blocking the Mellon iron mine project, how will we pay public employees?

chickelit said...

It's just lame when you can't make an acronym.

Chuck66 said...

LordS, I guess that's what it is. I don't mean to keep belittling Madison types, but if I were them, I would try to be persuasive, like you say.

Just nasty attacks don't really change any minds. How does a large group of people yelling "fuck you" to a former Governor make me want to join their cause?

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Clever? Your standards are dropping, Professor. Might be a good time to take your class if you're grading this easily.

As my whimsy leads me.. said...

Oh, the cleverness of them.

Toy

Ann Althouse said...

Gee, you commenters are brilliant.

alan markus said...

I think "Gocpr" did not make the final cut when naming the novel & movie, "The World According to Garp"

lemondog said...

re: no 't', meaning democracy is meant to be exclusive?

Leland said...

I read the sign and thought of Eliot Spitzer. The whole T in Democracy thing was lame. There is also no fleeing the state to avoid a vote in Democracy, but they claimed that's what it looks like.

chickelit said...

Althouse said: Gee, you commenters are brilliant.

I suppose a sign saying "Koch Ring" be more clever?

Coketown said...

That's not clever at all, actually.

Demonic idiots who
Envy
Monkeys
On account of their
Cerebral superiority
Rather than
Accepting
Their own
Stupidity

See, it just sounds contrived and is deficient in grace.

Chip S. said...

Gee, you commenters are brilliant.

You don't have to be Orson Welles to know that Plan 9 from Outer Space was not a very good movie.

Original Mike said...

Regarding the sentiments in the sign: I'd be willing to bet the ranch that a large majority of Tea Party supporters aren't supportive of so-called corporate welfare. I know I sure in the hell ain't. Clear out all the deduction undergrowth and lower the rates.

Scott M said...

Gee, you commenters are brilliant.

Finally...recognition. I will sleep well indeed tonight. Next stop, Olympus.

edutcher said...

Someone might want to tell the one saying there's no T in democracy to remember this isn't a democracy, it's a federal republic.

PS Good one, Coketown.

Coketown said...

Prove your brilliance to Ann by offering better placards.

There could be:
F*ck Civili-tea.

ricpic said...

Got
Old.
Couldn't
Perform.
Rats!

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

If Dane county liberals succeed in blocking the Mellon iron mine project, how will we pay public employees?

I don't think they look that far ahead.

LordSomber said...

LordS, I guess that's what it is. I don't mean to keep belittling Madison types, but if I were them, I would try to be persuasive, like you say.

Like I said in an earlier post, if one means to persuade, one shouldn't insult the intelligence of your audience.

The Tea Party signs may be simplistic too, but they don't address me like I'm a 9-year old.

Peano said...

Defining cleverness down.

Peano said...

Gee, you commenters are brilliant.

Defining brilliance down.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

More projection. It's so prevalent, they have no idea they are doing it.

Scott M said...

Gee, you commenters are brilliant.

Defining brilliance down.

Hey. Don't harsh my recognition, man.

Coketown said...

Kansas's
Overlords of
Capitol
Hill

Gingrich's
Ornery
Puppeteers
(Copyright 2011, Coketown ltd.)

Ann Althouse said...

Sarcasm deafness around here. Why?

ricpic said...

Well there's no T in Federal Republic either, edutcher! C'mon, put up your dukes, put up your dukes (he typed from the safety of his keyboard).

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Previously-closeted voter group recently ended their self-imposed gag order, acknowledged buyers' remorse and formed a new group, OVER;

Obama
Voters
Expressing
Regret

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

There's an old bit of wisdom... If one person says you're drunk, ignore him. If ten people say you're drunk, fall down.

If a large number of people miss the sarcasm, maybe the sarcasm is unexpectedly missing.

chickelit said...

Althouse said: Sarcasm deafness around here. Why?

garage mahal taxed my sarcasm meter. It's all used up.

Scott M said...

Sarcasm deafness around here. Why?

"Gee" is usually the bullhorn text equivalent that everything after is sarcastic. Outside of that, it can be tough to convey with tonal or visual ques.

I you suggesting that my hard-won recognition was, in fact, sarcasm? The hell you say.

Scott M said...

"with" = without

d'oh

Coketown said...

Sarcasm deafness around here. Why?

I blogged about a similar problem in fiction writing. A lot of writers simply abhor both adverbs and any verb besides 'said' for tagging dialogue. So unless the reader can contextually glean the tone of the statement, it falls flat. One sentence is not enough to denote sarcasm.

Chip S. said...

"Sarcasm deafness around here. Why?"

You omitted sardonic italics.

Surely you weren't being sarcastic when you called Tricia Willoughby a "tough kid!"

Maybe the ! is the no-sarc tag.

Scott M said...

One sentence is not enough to denote sarcasm.

Unless it starts with "Gee", that is. "Gosh" is also a good identifier.

On a more serious note (lol), does the use of sarcasm somehow convey the user's sense of self-worth contrasted with the intended sarcastic target?

Coketown said...

Actually at the gym I saw a funny shirt that said, "TEIAM." I thought it was a funny response to the whole "there's no (letter) in (word)" thing.

garage mahal said...

garage mahal taxed my sarcasm meter. It's all used up.

Hang in there.

Chip S. said...

does the use of sarcasm somehow convey the user's sense of self-worth contrasted with the intended sarcastic target?

I think it's supposed to convey the superior insight of both the speaker and the intended audience. Thus, AA's disappointment in us, I suppose.

Scott M said...

Actually at the gym I saw a funny shirt that said, "TEIAM."

That's pretty good. A little OT, but my favorite is a t-shirt that reads, "More People Have Read This Shirt Than Have Read Your Blog"

ricpic said...

Sarcasm deafness around here. Why?

Because you didn't put an /s at the end!

Rumpletweezer said...

I think the sign maker started out to write "There's no T in Democrat." Then she said to herself, "No, wait..."

Coketown said...

@Scott: I should buy that shirt. And you're right, a well-placed interjection is enough to denote sarcasm.

ricpic said...

I see that Chip S. beat me to it. But come on Althouse, you're dealing with mainly dumb male literalists here. We need clear signals!

LarsPorsena said...

Althouse and Meade's next project should be following some of these folks home and finding out what they do in their day jobs (if anything).

chickelit said...

@garage: I heard you chuckling at "Koch Ring" all the way over here.

edutcher said...

ric, I never said there was.

vbspurs said...

Chuck66 wrote:

I don't get it. Are they saying we shouldn't have private business in Wisconsin? If the Kochs close down the Georgia-Pacific mills in Wisconsin, who is going to pay the salaries and benies of the 80,000 government employees in Dane County?

Age old conundrum bared in this exchange by Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart in _Atlas Shrugged: Part 1_, with an union weenie (click for Youtube).

"You want me to provide the jobs, and you want to make it impossible for me to have any jobs to provide."

Single greatest scene in this movie, which made those in my showing whoop with appreciative hollers.

Drew said...

How do you get through the sort of thick skull that presumes a Republican Plutocracy, but turns a blind eye to über-wealthy Democrats and their union benefactors?

garage mahal said...

I think this one is hilarious I shot with my phone. Walkermeister Meisterwalker. (Need to view full size.)

traditionalguy said...

Yes, the GOP are the definitely Happy Hookers of politics. They win when they do what the are paid for doing, which is to slow down the insane government re-distribution of private property.

vbspurs said...

Wow, nobody got Ann's 'clever' as sarcasm remark??? For your penance, listen to six hours of Eve Arden's greatest radio shows. Cured.

Quayle said...

That guy looks like a Canada Goose killer.

He's a duck blind whore.

ricpic said...

edutcher - A lame attempt at a joke.

Now let's fight!


Feeling particularly silly today. Post traumatic tax syndrome.

Scott M said...

How do you get through the sort of thick skull that presumes a Republican Plutocracy, but turns a blind eye to über-wealthy Democrats and their union benefactors?

Or someone that bemoans income differences between workers and CEO's, but has no problem with what Bruce Springsteen makes versus his roadies.

Phil 3:14 said...

And Democrats have made asses of themselves

Jeremy said...

While Republican lawmakers appear unified against tax increases and many Tea Party activists want existing rates rolled back, statistics consistently show that federal taxes are at a historic low.

For the past two years, a family of four earning the median income has paid less in federal income taxes than at any time since at least 1955, according to the Tax Policy Center. All federal, state and local taxes combined are a lower percentage of per-capita income than at any time since the 1960s, according to the Tax Foundation. The highest income-tax bracket is its lowest since 1992. At 35 percent, it's well below the 50 percent mark of much of the 1980s and the 70 percent bracket of the 1970s.

MarkD said...

Is this the Special Olympics of political protest?

vbspurs said...

I'm tired of these overthought acronyms and portmanteau phrases of today, whether it be McHitlerChimpyHalliburton or Barry Hussein O'dumbo Soetero or Grand Ole Corporate Prostitution Ring Party.

As Jane Austen said, this is neither clever nor witty.

Chip S. said...

@vbspurs,

How about this as penance, read 5 times?

BTW, you'll note the diligent use of sardonic italics throughout that transcript. They're professionals.

wv: ellybelly--There's no "j" in ellybelly!

Quayle said...

At 35 percent, it's well below the 50 percent mark of much of the 1980s and the 70 percent bracket of the 1970s.

You mean, Jer, that when it was reduced to the present level, the country saw the boom which you always credit to Clinton?

Thanks for the tacit affirmation that the low tax rate is the correct policy.

Scott M said...

Holy Copy And Paste, Jeremy.

Could you, at least, have the decency to cite the website you're cropping that from without passing it off as your own muddle thoughts? Or do you use the men's room dishonestly as well?

Trooper York said...

Ann Althouse said...
Gee, you commenters are brilliant.

Or maybe this is just really boring.

Enough with the protest allready!

Jeremy said...

shoutingthomas - Why do you think you know so much about "whores?

Are you dating again?

Jeremy said...

Scott - Blow me you little prick.

"That came straight from me to you.

Scott M said...

And try to use quotation marks at both ends.

"I'm tired of smacking you around Vermin…it bores me"

Name that star and movie.

vbspurs said...

Chip S linked to:

Joan Face: Okay. Let's introduce our second exciting guest. An unbeievably gifted young actor, Greg Malone.

Greg Malone: Aw, thanks, Joan. By the way, you look greaaaat.


Heeheehee. Awesome. Didn't know Eric and Bill had ever done a skit together, so thanks, Chip!

Sigivald said...

That's clever?

Not only the wordplay, which is feeble and strained, but the "idea" behind it.

"Haw haw Republicans = Corporations and stuff!!!"

That was tired nonsense when I was in high school, and it hasn't aged that well.

I've got a good heuristic for talk about such things - if someone mentions "corporations" or "corporate" as if they're some sort of monolith, or as if they Inherently Wicked, I know I'm talking to a fool, a liar, or an idiot (at least on that particular subject) - and I don't much care which one it is.

It's a sign to stop trying to talk with them on the subject, for the most part.

Robin said...

Another protestor ignorant of the fact that Goldman Sachs owns the Democrat party.

Phil 3:14 said...

WEAC:

"I got mine!

Suckas!!"

Jeremy said...

Scottie - I see by your profile that you drive a cab.

How's biz?

Jeremy said...

Robin "Another protestor ignorant of the fact that Goldman Sachs owns the Democrat party."

Right.

Most of the huge investment houses are dominated by Democrats.

Duh.

Jeremy said...

How many of the teabagging clowns here have signed onto Dickhead Trump's campaign?

E.M. Davis said...

Jeremy-

Do you kiss your dogs with that mouth?

carkrueger said...

Ann, there is some great video you might want to share over at www.rightscoop.com

Scott M said...

I don't know who's profile you're looking at, "Duh"-boy, but it ain't mine. If you're inferring from "Transportation" that I drive a cab, you'd probably also buy bullshit like the ACA lowering medical costs.

Duh.

You definitely didn't bring your "A" game today, my friend. Not enough sleep last night? Or did you stay up late working on your Faraday cage?

Jeremy said...

E.M. Davis - I try not to do much kissing with the dog. (I had to put one down a few weeks ago.)

But it's nice of you to ask.

Does cursing bother you?

Jeremy said...

Scotie - I assume you drive a cab because you sound like an uneducated dunce.

Instead of regurgitating the same teabagger bullshit of others, why not try to throw something out that's remotely original?

We all know you hate the president, we all know you hate anything liberal, we all know you thought G.W. was top notch, and of course, we all know you think the GOP is going to save the world.

*Can I assume you were sound asleep when they were in control?

Leo said...

How about theres a T in constitutional republic
or something like Scott puts the T in plutocracy?

edutcher said...

Jeremy said...

How many of the teabagging clowns here have signed onto Dickhead Trump's campaign?

Jeremy has, I'll bet.

PS Foul language never overcame good rebuttal.

SukieTawdry said...

Neither of those strikes me as particularly clever.

Scott M said...

Scotie - I assume you drive a cab because you sound like an uneducated dunce.

Ah, so you're anti-cabbie, I take it? Every major city I've been in has a majority of immigrant cabbies, so you're also a racist. Not surprising, but it's nice to know you're honest about it.

Instead of regurgitating the same teabagger bullshit of others, why not try to throw something out that's remotely original?

Are you fucking kidding me? The "guy" that showed up today by copy-and-pasting someone else's writing laying THAT at my feet? Hysterical. Dunce-worthy, indeed.

the rest of your pathetic screed here, it's so bad I don't even want to copy it, however quickly, into my comp's RAM because it's so dripping with idiot goo

I'm tired of smacking you around, Vermin. It bores me.

Jeremy said...

Here's a typical bullshit reaction via the teabagging GOP:

Reacting to the news that rating agency Standard & Poors is downgrading its outlook for the U.S. economy based on political gridlock over cutting the deficit, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) claimed vindication for the GOP. According to Cantor, the report strengthens the Republicans' argument for holding out on a debt limit increase unless they can get major cuts as part of the deal.

But of course, he left this out:

The same news story Cantor sent to reporters on the S&P move notes that the last time the agency downgraded their outlook on US debt was 1996, out of fear that the GOP would block a debt ceiling vote.
(TPM)

Guess he just forgot.

Phil 3:14 said...

I'm breaking my troll rule again but anyway:

statistics consistently show that federal taxes are at a historic low.

See graph here

In fiscal year 2010, the federal government spent 25 percent of GDP, well above the historical average. Since 1950 annual expenditures have averaged just under 20 percent of GDP. According to the CBO’s “alternative scenario” budget projection—which assumes the most likely policy changes, including legislators’ concessions to interest groups such as doctors and senior citizens—spending at its current trajectory will increase to 26 percent of GDP in 2020 and to 32 percent in 2030.

In spite of widely varying tax rate over time "annual federal revenue since 1950 has averaged just under 18 percent of GDP. Sometimes the percentage is a bit lower, and sometimes it is a bit higher. "

HOWEVER "Under the CBO’s basic projection...federal revenue will rise to 20 percent of GDP in 2015 and then climb even higher, reaching 21 percent in 2020 and 22.3 percent in 2030.

So tax revenue has varied over time (in spite of hi and low marginal rates) but overall been pretty steady. What's changed recently is spending.

Now Jeremy you've going to have to really sell me on the idea that life was so horrible in 2007 that clearly all this spending was and will continue to be necessary for ever more and therefore we need to raise taxes.

Otherwise, I'll say "show me that you can consistent cut spending (not once, not twice but several times) and then maybe we can talk about tax increases."

(HT Reason magazine)

Jay said...

For the past two years, a family of four earning the median income has paid less in federal income taxes than at any time since at least 1955, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Great.

I think the Democrats, the party you vote for by the way, should run on a platform of making the middle class pay their fare share of taxes.

After all, they pay little to nothing now, so it is time for them to contribute.

Jay said...

Jeremy said...

Robin "Another protestor ignorant of the fact that Goldman Sachs owns the Democrat party."

Right.


It is a fact.

You seem to be running away from it, bozo.

Gee, I wonder why?

Jeremy said...

Scottie - I love cab drivers. Actually drove one in a previous life...and have no idea what the hell any of it has to do with "racism??" (Duh)

As for your usual teabagging regurgiation mode; I have no idea what any of my comments or cutting and pasting has to do with what you yourself post. All you're doing is sucking up.

Try reading something. Try doing some research.

Then get back to me.

Jay said...

For the past two years, a family of four earning the median income has paid less in federal income taxes than at any time since at least 1955, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Here is another nice tidbit:

45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

I can't wait to watch the party you vote for call for higher taxation on the middle class.

Jeremy said...

Jay - Provide a link to information that would make us believe that Goldman Sachs "owns" the Democratic Party.

Based on your bullshit charge, can also assume the banks "own" the GOP?

Didn't little Georgie hand them 700 billion?

You're a idiot.

Jay said...

Chuck66 said...

I don't get it. Are they saying we shouldn't have private business in Wisconsin? If the Kochs close down the Georgia-Pacific mills in Wisconsin, who is going to pay the salaries and benies of the 80,000 government employees in Dane County?


They're too stupid to see the logical extension of their ideas.

To many of these belligerent, ignorant people, the government has it's own money.

They do not understand basic economics, US History, or civics.

The majority of them are simpletons.

Jay said...

Jeremy said...

Jay - Provide a link to information that would make us believe that Goldman Sachs "owns" the Democratic Party.


Um, ok. Since 1990, they've given 62% of all contributions to Democrats.

PS, the 5 richest US Senators are all Democrats.

The Democrats are the party of the rich.

And you're a minstrel show.

Peano said...

Sarcasm deafness around here. Why?

Hint: When the majority of readers don't understand a writer's meaning, the problem is in the writing, not the reading.

Jeremy said...

Jay - "45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank."

The usual (income tax) canard that disregards other taxes that are most certainly paid, tax credits relating to everything from children, mortgages, etc. that create such a situation...and of course, the fact that many Americans just do not make enough money to require the payment of "income taxes."

Forgot about all of that...?

Jay said...

The usual (income tax) canard that disregards other taxes that are most certainly paid,

Hysterical.

Yes, it is a "canard" because it is a fact you don't like.

When are you going to call for raising the rates on these people who pay no tax at all?

Oh, you're a silly hypocrite.

Never mind.

Jay said...

the fact that many Americans just do not make enough money to require the payment of "income taxes."

Uh, who are you to say whether or not they "make enough money"?

Why are you defending these people who don't pay their fair share?

Oh, it doesn't fit your silly class warfare agenda.

Never mind.

Jay said...

The usual (income tax) canard that disregards other taxes that are most certainly paid

Actually, it does not such thing.

Pointing out that middle class households do not pay income taxes is not a canard. It is a fact that reveals your illogical approach and idiocy.

It is rather comical you don't point out "all the other taxes people pay" when you are bashing "the rich"

Gee, I wonder why that is?

Jeremy said...

Jay - So if the employees of a company donate more money to a specific political party...it "owns" the party?

And if that's the case, according to yur numbers, the GOP is now the current "owner?"

And now we're to believe that the Democrats are the party of the wealthy?

And at the same time, they feel the wealthy should pay more taxes??

You're dumb as a bag of rocks.

Peano said...

Coketown said... One sentence is not enough to denote sarcasm.

I agree so wholeheartedly with the scintillating brilliance of your observation, I'm going to have it cast in pure gold and mounted on the wall above my desk.

Jeremy said...

Jay - I stand by my comment.

You're talking about "income taxes" as if they are the ONLY taxes one pays.

Show me where those who are not required to pay income taxes do not pay payroll, sales and other taxes throughout the year.

Otherwise, stuff your teabagger drivel.

Jeremy said...

Jay - I never said the wealthy do not pay other taxes.

I merely pointed out the reason many Americans are not required to pay "income taxes."

Why would you not know any of this?

Did you attend college or high school?

Coketown said...

@Peano: That's two sentences. Two independent clauses, though one is subordinate. One period does not equal one sentence.

The Grand Inquisitor said...

"I merely pointed out the reason many Americans are not required to pay "income taxes."

Why would you not know any of this?"

It's dishonest to claim he didn't know what he already acknowledged plainly.

Sure, some people who don't pay income tax pay some other taxes. So? You haven't explained your point. You said Jay's point was a dishonest canard... how?

Jeremy said...

Jay - Educate yourself:

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million.

Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, DOWN from 26 percent in 1992.

There are so many TAX BREAK that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.

Is it sinking into that rock you call a head?

edutcher said...

Jeremy said...

Jay - Provide a link to information that would make us believe that Goldman Sachs "owns" the Democratic Party.

Based on your bullshit charge, can also assume the banks "own" the GOP?

Didn't little Georgie hand them 700 billion?

You're a idiot.


Takes one to know one.

Try again. The 3 biggest recipients of G-S money before the last POTUS election were the Friend of Angelo, the Hildabeast, and, lo, Little Zero's name led the rest.

The WSJ was commenting on how the banks were buying Demo all the way back to when Willie was Serail Rapinst In Chief and Robbie Rubin was telling him to leave policy to the grownups.

As for the bank bailouts, they were expanded by guess who and were the brainchild of Secretary of the Tax Fraud, Timothy Geithner.

Coketown said...

Jeremy is making a strong case for closing tax loopholes and broadening the base. But how will the government micromanage our lives if they can't coerce our behavior with tax breaks?!

Jay said...

You're talking about "income taxes" as if they are the ONLY taxes one pays.

Uh, no I'm not.

After all, it was you who posted:

Jeremy said...

statistics consistently show that federal taxes are at a historic low.


Now, when the fact is demonstrated that almost half of US households pay no income tax (after all, it was you who brought up income taxes), you dissemble into curse words, idiotic rants, and pathetically try and change the subject.

Want to guess as to why that is?

Peano said...

Coketown said...@Peano: That's two sentences. Two independent clauses, though one is subordinate. One period does not equal one sentence.

Go directly to 7th grade. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

"A complex sentence is a sentence with one independent clause and at least one dependent clause."

And if you're just being grammatically priggish about the implied conjunction, then I'll head you off with this:

Because I agree so wholeheartedly with the scintillating brilliance of your observation, I'm going to have it cast in pure gold and mounted on the wall above my desk.

Jay said...

Jeremy said...

Jay - I never said the wealthy do not pay other taxes.


Um, I never said you did.

I said you reserve this caveat when talking about those who do not pay federal income taxes (a topic you introduced and now are running away from).

And now we're to believe that the Democrats are the party of the wealthy?

The top 5 richest senators are all Democrats.

The Democrats receive the overwhelming majority of their donations from "the rich"

Republicans receive smaller donations in larger numbers.

So yes, the Democrats are the party of the rich.

Jay said...


Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, DOWN from 26 percent in 1992.


Um, ok?

So you're for making those middle class people who aren't paying income taxes pay, right?

Coketown said...

@Peano: That's not a dependent clause you fool! It is an independent, subordinate clause! Those are two distinct sentences.

And then you have the problem of what I first stated, in that you're depending on extraneous context to establish your tone. My point was that one sentence, devoid of outside context, doesn't establish tone. You give me one sentence that is patently sarcastic and does not rely on externalities for context. Try it. And make sure it's ONE sentence this time.

Jeremy said...

The Grand Inquisitor - "You said Jay's point was a dishonest canard... how?"

First of all, I said it was a "canard" not a "dishonest" canard, so try to be more honest.

And I still feel that the blanket statement that a vast number of Americans who pay no federal income taxes are somehow taking advatage of the system without giving (or paying) anything back.

If their level of income allows them to pay no income taxes, while playing by the rules and utilizing the legal deductions afforded them via the Internal Revenue, they're doing nothing wrong and shouldn't have listen to hypocrites like Jay, who acts as if he himself wouldn't take full advantage of the same laws. (And for all we know, he does just that.)

Major corporations that pay little if any tax are a bigger concern to me, and it should be for you, too.

But we all know the real reason you and others are here is to bash anybody with whom you disagree or you feel is the least bit "liberal."

That's what being a teabagger is all about...whing and bitching about everything.

Jay said...

And at the same time, they feel the wealthy should pay more taxes??

Yes, the article you reference noted it.

Bill Clinton is on record saying he wishes taxes were higher.

Many, many wealthy people say this (while not making voluntary contributions and taking every known deduction).

The Democrats are the party of the rich.

This isn't news.

You're stupid.

That also isn't news.

Jay said...

First of all, I said it was a "canard" not a "dishonest" canard, so try to be more honest.

And you can't back that up.

I doubt you know what "canard" means.

So you're for making those middle class people who aren't paying income taxes pay, right?

Jeremy said...

Jay - "So you're for making those middle class people who aren't paying income taxes pay, right?"

Are you dense ot just plain stupid?

The reason they don't have to pay is related to income levels, combined with legal, acceptable deductions...just like many wealthy Americans pay much less that the 17%.

Why can't you understand that?

Jay said...

And if that's the case, according to yur numbers, the GOP is now the current "owner?"

Um, the top 80% of Goldman's congressional donations (in $ amounts) go to Democrats.

So no.

Jay said...

The reason they don't have to pay is related to income levels, combined with legal, acceptable deductions..

Um, nobody is disputing that.

So you're for making those middle class people who aren't paying income taxes pay, right?

Note you can't answer.

Coketown said...

There's even a joke about dependent clauses that might help you. It goes, "I was going to go to the halloween party as a dependent clause, but my date canceled and I can't stand alone."

Jay said...

Why can't you understand that?

Hysterical.

I love how you can't bring yourself to answer the question.

Gee, I wonder why that is?

PS, I never stated middle income people can't take "legal deductions" you illiterate bozo.

So you're for making those middle class people who aren't paying income taxes pay, right?

Jeremy said...

ay - I have no idea what my comments have to do with making the middle-class pay more.

You really need to think before posting.

MadisonMan said...

Sarcasm deafness around here. Why?

There was a news item yesterday or today that noted that inability to detect sarcasm heralds the onset of dementia.

Link.

It's a link to Fox News so you have to believe it!

Jay said...

If their level of income allows them to pay no income taxes, while playing by the rules and utilizing the legal deductions afforded them via the Internal Revenue, they're doing nothing wrong and shouldn't have listen to hypocrites like Jay,

Um, I'm in on way a "hypocrite" (watching you throw around these words you can't understand is fun) for pointing out that there are millions of middle class people paying zero in federal taxes.

That is a fact.

What you refuse to answer is whether or not you want to make them pay.

Jeremy said...

Jay - So what is your point (and not the one on top of your little head)...that you feel people should be paying more taxes? Or that they shouldn't be allowed deductions? Or is it that you just think Americans are getting away with something?

Jay said...

Jeremy said...

ay - I have no idea what my comments have to do with making the middle-class pay more.


Hysterical.

Let's try some actual logic (I know it is tough you silly, drooling imbecile):

1. You introduced the topic of federal income tax rates, and how "low" they are.

2. The fact that "45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010" was presented

3. If taxes are at a "historic low" and it is pointed out millions pay no taxes...

4. It is logical to assume that when griping about "low" taxes the people paying zero should pay something.

-You can't grasp this.

Why?

You're illogical and silly.

Jay said...

Jeremy said...

Jay - So what is your point (and not the one on top of your little head)...that you feel people should be paying more taxes?


Er, I'm not the one making post after post saying a family of four earning the median income has paid less in federal income taxes than at any time since at least 1955,

Then not understanding the logical conclusion.

Jeremy said...

Jay - Unless you're asking me to change the tax codes, what would anything I "think" have to do with anybody paying more or less taxes?

You're just throwing out the usual teabagger chum, whining about how sooooo many Americans are not paying income taxes (as if those are the only taxes they are indeed obligated to paying), as if you're somehow being cheated...while at the same time completly ignoring the wealthy paying less and less each year...as if that's just fine.

That's hypocritical tea bagger drivel.

Jay said...

Jeremy said...

Jay - Unless you're asking me to change the tax codes, what would anything I "think" have to do with anybody paying more or less taxes?


Oh, watching you backtrack and dissemble is quite the treat.

After all, it was you who introduced the topic of:
For the past two years, a family of four earning the median income has paid less in federal income taxes than at any time since at least 1955,

Now you don't want to offer opinions on tax rates!

Hysterical.

Jay said...

whining about how sooooo many Americans are not paying income taxes (as if those are the only taxes they are indeed obligated to paying), as if you're somehow being cheated.

Um, I never said I was "cheated"

Nor did I imply I was "cheated"

I simply introduced a fact that threw your silly, ignorant talking points for a loop.

Now you're reduced to pretending you don't have an opinion on lowering or raising income tax rates.

After introducing the topic, no less.

Jay said...

while at the same time completly ignoring the wealthy paying less and less each year..

Actually, the top 10% paid 69.94% of all income taxes in 2008.

Carry on now, bozo.

garage mahal said...

TAX THE POOR!

Phil 3:14 said...

I thought Europe was the model to emulate.

They need to catch up to us

Jeremy said...

Jay - Once again, just so you can understand: I have no idea why, just because levels of taxation has come down since 1955, that you feel I want the middle-class to pay more taxes.
I've posted no comments that imply or infer any such thing.

On the other hand, I do believe the wealthy should pay more.

I merely pointed out that those who pay "no federal income" taxes are allowed that right via the tax laws. You, on the other hand, appear to think there's something wrong with that...or you wouldn't have posted your initial cut and paste pointing it out. (Right?)

I also have no idea why you feel such a bond with the wealthy anyway, you and I both know you're far from being wealthy, and this is nothing more than the usual teabagger whining and bitching.

Peano said...

Coketown said...
My point was that one sentence, devoid of outside context, doesn't establish tone.


You wrote: "One sentence is not enough to denote sarcasm." There is nothing in that sentence about "outside context."

Coketown dug in deeper ... You give me one sentence that is patently sarcastic and does not rely on externalities for context. Try it. And make sure it's ONE sentence this time.

I gave you one sentence: Because I agree so wholeheartedly with the scintillating brilliance of your observation, I'm going to have it cast in pure gold and mounted on the wall above my desk.

Phil 3:14 said...

TAX THE POOR!

Step 1:
Give tax breaks to the "middle class"

Step 2:
Redefine the middle class

Step 3:
Repeat as needed

(Please note: at some point you may need to import some rich folks to pay the bills)

Jeremy said...

Jay "Actually, the top 10% paid 69.94% of all income taxes in 2008."

That has nothing to do with their tax rate, and has as much to do with making more money that can be taxed.

The number of millionaires in the U.S. rose 8% in 2010 to roughly 5.6 million households.

More millionaires = More taxes.

If you want them to pay a smaller percentage, tell them to stop making so much money.

Phil 3:14 said...

And did I mention unintended consequences

"Historical data from the left-of-center Tax Policy Center shows that the wealthy are providing an increasing share of income taxes. In 1979, the top 10 percent of households paid 40.7 percent of federal income-taxes. By 2007, after President George W. Bush’s tax cuts had taken effect, the top 10 percent paid 55 percent of taxes. The lowest 60 percent saw their share drop from 22.5 percent to 13.4 percent, partly because the Bush tax-cuts eliminated taxes for many low-earners, and boosted the “progressiveness” of the tax code.
One painful side-effect of the federal government’s reliance on income-taxes paid by the wealthy is that the 2008 recession had a disproportionate impact on federal tax-income, which has dropped from roughly 18 percent of the economy to 15 percent since 2008. “Higher-income people tend to have more volatile incomes that middle-income people,” partly because they earn more from from stocks sales and dividends, Mark Robyn, staff economist at the Tax Policy Foundation. When the economy shrinks, so does the stock market, and so does federal income, he said. Tax ”revenues increase faster when the economy is growing quickly, and tend to shrink faster” when the economy turns down, he said."

Jeremy said...

It's amazing how many of the regular teabaggers here every day are soooo concerned with the wealthy getting fucked.

As if you have anything in common.

Duh.

Matt said...

I'll bet few here realized Ronald Reagan raised corporate taxes by 120 billion over 5 years.

What a socialist....

Jeremy said...

Phil - "the wealthy are providing an increasing share of income taxes"

No shit?

And do you think that has anything at all to do with them also enjoying an "increasing share" of the income???

More income = More taxes

Shocking.

Phil 3:14 said...

I also have no idea why you feel such a bond with the wealthy anyway, you and I both know you're far from being wealthy,

Give yourself to the Dark Side. It is the only way you can save your friends.

chickelit said...

garage mahal said...
TAX THE POOR!

Is that how you justify Obama's energy policy?

Coketown said...

@Peano: That sentence is by its own admission referencing my "brilliant observation." Outside context. Try again.

Jay said...

Jeremy said...

Jay - Once again, just so you can understand: I have no idea why, just because levels of taxation has come down since 1955, that you feel I want the middle-class to pay more taxes.
I've posted no comments that imply or infer any such thing.


I never said you did. As evidenced by the fact that I asked you 5 times if you're for making those middle class people who aren't paying income taxes pay.

Want to guess as to why you argue against straw men time & again?

On the other hand, I do believe the wealthy should pay more.

Of course you do, you silly little wealth distributor you.

Jay said...

If you want them to pay a smaller percentage, tell them to stop making so much money.

Funny, and here I thought you were some high flying business man!

A million dollars is not a lot of money. But apparently it is to you (because you're poor and that is because you're not that intelligent).

Chip S. said...

Jeremy,

First, thanks for providing some numbers about the wealthy and their taxes. Now let's go to the arithmetic.

Raising the average income-tax rate on the 400 wealthiest households from 17 to 26 would yield an extra $31.05 million per household on average (.09x$345). That would mean an extra $12.42 billion annually from all 400 of them ($31.05x400).

That doesn't really make much of a dent in a $1,500 billion deficit.

The most that could plausibly be obtained from restoring the full range of Clinton tax rates is less than $100 billion, according to IRS figures.

Raising more revenue than that absolutely requires raising tax rates in the middle brackets.

That's why, no matter what you think about the tax part of Paul Ryan's plan, the simple facts of the federal budget mean that something big must be done about spending.

That's my exercise in civility for today.

Jeremy said...

Matt "I'll bet few here realized Ronald Reagan raised corporate taxes by 120 billion over 5 years."

And after seeing the disateroud results of lowering the top rates from about 70% to about 30%, those weren't the only taxes he raised.

1982 and 1984 were the biggest tax increases ever pushed through in peactime.

He also increased payroll taxes, made pepole income tax on specific benefits, and made the self-employed pay the full payroll tax rate.

Oh, and he also booted all kinds of tax breaks.

Based on the teabaggers here, he wouldn't get elected dogcatcher today.

Jay said...

Matt said...

I'll bet few here realized Ronald Reagan raised corporate taxes by 120 billion over 5 years.


Linking to a left wing propagandist outlet does not constitute a fact.

But I do find it funny you ignorant progressives actually believe the President "raises taxes."

Why, it is almost as if you're dumb or something.

Matt said...

The estimated cost of the tax cuts that apply to the richest Americans is $42 billion this fiscal year.

The cuts the lawmakers approved last week = $38 billion.

So end the tax cuts and you save toward the deficit.

Peano said...

@Peano: That sentence is by its own admission referencing my "brilliant observation." Outside context. Try again.

You said: "One sentence is not enough to denote sarcasm."

I've given a counter-example to your claim. Touchdown. You can't move the goalpost now.

Jay said...

On the other hand, I do believe the wealthy should pay more.

Yeah, let's make the top 10% pay 80% of all income taxes!

What could go wrong!??

Jay said...

So end the tax cuts and you save toward the deficit.

Yes, because changes in tax policy have no economic effect or anything.

You're so stupid, I kind of feel sorry for you.

Jeremy said...

Jay - "A million dollars is not a lot of money."

Not if you only make it once.

Do it for a decade or two and it can really add up.

Why are you enamered with the wealthy?

Jay said...

So end the tax cuts and you save toward the deficit.

So cut spending and cut the deficit.

Jeremy said...

Chip - So you feel we should just leave things as they are?

Explain why are you so enamered with the wealthy?

You're not wealthy.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Matt said...

I'll bet few here realized Ronald Reagan raised corporate taxes by 120 billion over 5 years.

You would lose that bet.

You also fail to mention that the Think Progress piece says he did so by closing corporate loopholes, including to future Obama buddies, GE. Most on the right would be very happy to close corporate loopholes, including on current Obama buddies, GE.

And the Think Progress piece fails to mention that corporate tax receipts also increased due to an overall cut in rates that enabled them to make more money and raise their taxable base.

I doubt you'll find anyone here on the right who would object to lowering general rates while closing corporate loopholes. That's not socialism, that's a level and predictable tax system.

garage mahal said...

Phil - "the wealthy are providing an increasing share of income taxes

I bet this has something to do with making an increased share of wealth? Unless they're just sending in extra income tax checks to the IRS. Just going out on a limb here, thinking out loud....

Jeremy said...

Jay "So cut spending and cut the deficit."

Did you just come up with this?

Did this ever occur to you when you marched into the booth and voted for little Georgie?

Did he cut spending?

Why are you so concerned now?

Can we take a guess?

Jeremy said...

Martin - "I doubt you'll find anyone here on the right who would object to lowering general rates while closing corporate loopholes."

Then why didn't Bush and the GOP do it when they were running the show?

Why weren't you bitching about any of it then?

Why did you wait until now?

Coketown said...

One sentence isn't enough to denote sarcasm! Anymore than one egg is enough to make a cake. I've asked you several times to give me a single sentence that, by itself, is enough to show sarcasm. You can't do it. Because sarcasm by its nature demands outside context; it demands something extraneous to respond to.

I shouldn't have started an argument with someone so stupid he doesn't know what a sentence is, or isn't.

Jeremy said...

Jay- "Yes, because changes in tax policy have no economic effect or anything."

So raising the taxes on the wealthy or corporations would have no economic impact?

Duh...okay.

Gladys said...

GE, O`s ally stand for?

edutcher said...

Jeremy said...

It's amazing how many of the regular teabaggers here every day are soooo concerned with the wealthy getting fucked.

As if you have anything in common.

Duh.


Most of those so-called wealthy are small businessmen.

Who provide most of the jobs in this country.

Don't "Duh".

It just makes you look foolish.

Jeremy said...

Matt "So end the tax cuts and you save toward the deficit."

You're beating a very dead and very dumb horse.

For whatever reason, most here have some kind of bizarre fixation on assisting the wealthy.

Peano said...

Coketown said...I shouldn't have started an argument with someone so stupid he doesn't know what a sentence is, or isn't.

LOL ... well, you got the first part of that thought right: You shouldn't have started an argument. You didn't have a leg to stand on.

Matt said...

Jay

Are you really that naive?
Read the post I linked.
Also read this NY Times link under the Defying Reagan’s Legacy section.

The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.

Also realize that Reagan raised taxes 6 times. Including FICA taxes.

That is a fact, Jay.

Jay said...

Did he cut spending?


Um, no, and plenty of conservatives were unhappy about it.


Why are you so concerned now?


Because we're $14 trillion in debt, maybe?

Because the US spends $4.3 billion a week on debt servicing, maybe?

It isn't that complicated, idiot.

chickelit said...

garage admitting that the wealthy pay a greater share of taxes doesn't square with the wealthy or even middle class being among the shocking 45% who pay no Federal income tax. So could it be that more poor are freeloading than ever before? Just going out on a limb here, thinking out loud....

Jay said...

Also realize that Reagan raised taxes 6 times. Including FICA taxes.

Also realize the President can't raise taxes.

Are you really this stupid?

Really?

Jay said...

Matt "So end the tax cuts and you save toward the deficit."

You're beating a very dead and very dumb horse.


Er, if you confiscated all the wealth of all the billionaires in the United States, there would still be a deficit.

Carry on, dumbass.

Jeremy said...

edu-dolt - "Most of those so-called wealthy are small businessmen."

A "small business" is generally defined as one with less than 500 employees...and about 95% of the businesses in America fit the bill...so eveidently 95% of American businessmen are "wealthy?"

And you think that the top 400 wealthiest Americans are part of this "small businesse" thingie?

Jay said...

PS, If you took all the income of people over $200,000, it would yield about $1.89 trillion.

Or about what we spend on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in a single fiscal year.

So yeah Matt & little jeremy keep thinking that tax increases are the way to go.

Really, die on that hill...

Jeremy said...

Jay - "Er, if you confiscated all the wealth of all the billionaires in the United States, there would still be a deficit."

Matt never said anything relating to that.

His point is correct.

Stop throwing out teabagger chum.

Chip S. said...

@Jeremy: Read twice, comment once.

Nowhere did I say that I agreed with Ryan's tax-cut proposals, although I do think he's proposing them for reasons other than being a tool of the wealthy. I would be ok with returning to rates closer to the Clinton tax code until the deficit is under control. The key point is that doing that alone will not come close to fixing the problem.

In case you wonder why it's so hard to just raise taxes on "the rich," consider this: the top income-tax bracket for 2010 starts at $373,650, where the rate is 35%. That means that someone earning $500,000 only pays the 35% rate on $126,350 of income, not the entire $500,000. To get more of this evil household's income, you've either got to (1) raise the tax rates on the lower tax brackets or (2) raise the top rate. But you've got to raise the top rate by a lot to get the same revenue bump you'd get from raising the rates in the lower brackets, again as a matter of pure arithmetic.

As you keep chasing revenue by raising the top tax rate, some pretty severe disincentive effects kick in, thereby making revenue even harder to get. That's not evidence that I'm "enamored" (note carefully the spelling) with the rich. It's just evidence, period.

Jay said...

The really, really, truly frightening thing is that the current occupant of the White House knows as little about economics as jeremy.

Seriously, think about that...

Jeremy said...

Jay - Can we all assume (and hope) that you will be refusing any Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security?

And where was all of this angst during the Bush years?

Hypocrite.

Matt said...

Jay

He signed bills by Congress that raised taxes 6 times. Yes, no shit.
Except you didn't even know that.

What gets me is you hammer Obama when he signs blls written by Congress but ignore those Reagan signed. Double standard.

Silly conservative....


Martin L. Shoemaker

Thanks for not being naive. You are correct. Loopholes exist even under Obama. They should not.

Let's raies taxes. Please. And cut milirary spending while we are at it.

Jay said...

Matt never said anything relating to that.


I never said he did. Why do you continue to argue against things that were never said?


His point is correct


Actually, his point is incorrect.

But you're too stupid to see why.

Jeremy said...

Jay - Bush was an economist?

Name the last president who was.

Dumbass.

Jay said...

Matt said...

Jay

He signed bills by Congress that raised taxes 6 times


And then what?

Are you suggesting Reagan didn't sign tax cut bills?

Are you suggesting the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, the core of which was a version of the Kemp-Roth bill providing a 25 percent across-the-board cut in personal marginal tax rates, wasn't signed by Reagan?

You have no point, clown.

shiloh said...

Once again, it's the Jay & Jeremy show.

As always, please no wagering ...

Jay said...

What gets me is you hammer Obama when he signs blls written by Congress but ignore those Reagan signed.

97% of Obama's presidency has involved the party he belongs to controlling Congress.

Additionally, Obama supports out of control government spending.

Jeremy said...

Jay "Actually, his point is incorrect."

This is what he posted:

"The estimated cost of the tax cuts that apply to the richest Americans is $42 billion this fiscal year. The cuts the lawmakers approved last week = $38 billion. So end the tax cuts and you save toward the deficit."

What is incorrect?

Jay said...

Let's raies taxes. Please. And cut milirary spending while we are at it.

Let's cut government spending.

Please.

Jay said...

What is incorrect?

The entire paragraph.

Jeremy said...

Jay "97% of Obama's presidency has involved the party he belongs to controlling Congress."

Prove it.

Jay said...

And cut milirary spending while we are at it.

That is an obscene suggestion.

Matt said...

Jay

If we cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid there will be alot of elderly who will "die on that hill" as you say.

Not that you care....

But all I am asking if for the Bush tax cuts to end and just maybe raise taxes in some areas. It won't solve everything but it is much more along the lines of common sense - not to mention humane.

But in the process of mentioning this I try to point out how it is not really that radical. It happened under Reagan - the president most conservatives praise as being most sensible. And so he was some of the time.

Jeremy said...

Jay - Oh, okay.

Guess we'll just have to accept it...you know...because you said it.

Duh.

Big Mike said...

Time for a little thought experiment. Suppose all the corporations shriveled up and died? Then who would pay taxes?

Not me -- if the corporation I work for folds then I'll be collecting unemployment instead of paying taxes. (And 99 weeks from now I'll be eligible to collect full social security.)

Not UAW members. Not members of the craft unions.

Only politicians, schoolteachers, and AFSCME members would still have have enough income to be taxed. We would, of course, have to immediately double and triple their taxes to cover the shortfall.

Maybe it's time for the Dumbocrats to find a new bugaboo?

Jay said...

Matt said...

Jay

If we cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid there will be alot of elderly who will "die on that hill" as you say.


Hysterical.

Yes, stop sending millionaires social security checks and Medicare cards and people will die!!!!

But all I am asking if for the Bush tax cuts to end

The Bush tax cuts dropped millions of middle income filers from federal income tax liability.

I'm glad you want to raise their taxes though.

garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

I try to point out how it is not really that radical. It happened under Reagan -

Reagan signed a tax cut bill reducing the marginal rate "on the rich" by 25%.

That is a fact.

PS, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent.

Matt said...

Jay

That is an obscene suggestion.

No. The cost of the military is obscene. But you know this....

Cutting the cost is common sense. It can happen without losing any effectivness in the military. But it will never happen so it's a moot point.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - So you're in favor of lowering corporate rates?

Jay said...

The cost of the military is obscene

The cost of Medicare is obscene.

The cost of the Department of Education is obscene.

The cost of Social Security is obscene.

The cost of SCHIP is obscene.

It can happen without losing any effectivness in the military.

How would you know?

Chip S. said...

Maybe Big Mike is really a Harvard economist.

Jay said...

The cost of the military is obscene. But you know this...

Actually, I don't.

Funny how you can't name any other area in the government to cut spending on?

Gee, I wonder why that is?

Matt said...

Jay

Wait, so in the tiny enclave you live in it is only millionaires who get social security checks and Medicare cards?

Wow, you are sheltered. Perhaps you live on Jupiter Island?

And yes the marginal tax rate went down under Reagan. But he signed into law a very minor tweak to FICA taxes. So minor in fact no one cared! The same tweak today would do wonders.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 251   Newer› Newest»